Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

One of the less impressive arguments against Lukan authorship of Acts is that Luke and Paul disagree on what it takes to be an apostle. There is no doubt that Paul claimed to be an apostle because he was called by Jesus to serve as a messenger to the Gentiles. Paul’s role as an apostle is attested in the following letters: Rom 1:1; 11:13; 1 Cor. 1:1; 9:1-2; 15:9; 2 Cor. 1:1; 12:12; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:1; 1:11; and Titus 1:1. While it is true that in 1 Cor. 15:9, Paul associates his being an apostle with being commissioned by the risen Jesus, it is also true that this is not the only way in which he uses the term. The world itself is something akin to “sent messenger.” Paul refers to apostles (“apostolos”) that he has sent out as his representatives to another church in 2 Cor. 8:23. A similar usage of the term is found in Phil. 2:25 and 1 Thess. 2:6. In 2 Cor. 12:12, Paul seems to associate being an apostle with “signs and wonders and miracles." Many of the rest of the references do not lend themselves to an easy understanding of the precise definition beyond being specially called to act as a representative of Christ, mostly likely in the founding of churches.

The situation is further muddied by yet more variety in the use of the term among early Christians. A curious example of how the term could be used differently comes from the Epistle to the Hebrews. The author of Hebrews refers to Jesus himself as “the Apostle and High Priest of our confession.” (Heb. 3:1). The Gospel of Matthew uses it to refer to the twelve disciples (Mat. 10:2), as does the Gospel of Mark (Mark 6:30). The usage in Mark is interesting in its focus on being sent by Jesus. The twelve are sent out as “disciples” but when they return from their missions they are “apostles.” (Mark 6:7, 30). Given the temporal primacy of Mark and the popularity of Matthew, this association of the term with the Twelve was, at the least, quite common in the early Christian churches. Luke, for the most part, follows Matthew and Mark by using “apostles” to generally refer to the Twelve.

One skeptic argues: “In Acts, however, the apostleship was presented as an office which could only be conferred on someone who had been with Jesus when he was alive and must be one of the twelve.”

Our skeptic has overstated his case. The verses he cites to claim that Acts unequivocally states that no one could be an apostle without having broken bread with Jesus are not compelling. In Acts 1:21-25, Peter describes how the Twelve chose a successor to Judas. Although Peter says that Matthias will take his place in this “ministry and apostleship” from which Judas turned aside, he does not equate “apostleship” exclusively with being a member of the Twelve anymore than he equates having a “ministry” exclusively with being a member of the Twelve.

As for Acts 10:41, it does not mention any “criterion for apostleship.” In fact, it does not refer to apostleship at all. The same is true of Acts 13:30-31. Therein, Acts refers to those who followed Jesus from Galilee through the resurrection. They are witnesses (“martus”) to Jesus’ ministry and resurrection, not necessarily apostles. Nowhere is Paul “made to accept” that he is not an apostle because he did not follow Jesus from Galilee through his resurrection.

Additionally, as our skeptic must concede (albeit in tiny print in an endnote), the author of Acts specifically refers to Paul as an apostle twice in Acts 14:4 and 14:

“But the people of the city were divided; and some sided with the Jews, and some with the apostles,” and

“But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out.”

Undaunted, our skeptic claims that it is irrelevant that Acts specifically refers to Paul as an apostle on two occasions because the author is relying on a source for verse 14. Of course, the author of Acts is also relying on a source (Mark) and his usage in Luke when he refers to the Twelve as apostles. And here we perhaps have the crux of the explanation. The author of Acts is somewhat boxed in by the established usage of the term “apostles” in his most important gospel source, Mark. Having faithfully followed Mark’s use of the term as applied to the Twelve in the Gospel of Luke (and consistent with Matthew and most likely a widely established usage at the time he wrote), the author of Acts continues to use the same term in the same way in his second volume. Nothing about this is inconsistent with the author having been a companion of Paul. Simply because the author traveled with Paul on occasion does not mean that he was obligated to make an issue out of how the term apostle was used. Nor does it mean that the author/companion was required to have one meaning of the term in the Gospel of Luke and another in Acts. Nor does it mean that he would have picked a fight over this one point to champion Paul at the risk of obscuring his larger points or alienating some of his readers. Indeed, simply because they worked together on occasion does not mean that Luke could not have had a different opinion about the meaning of the term "apostle."

Put it this way. If it is true -- as many claim -- that the author of Acts was attempting to portray a positive portrait of the early Church, and if there was a more accepted understanding of the term “apostle,” why is he obligated to rock the boat? There is no compelling reason to pick such a fight. Even if it was not a point of contention at the time he wrote, why would he be obligated to use the term in a way that might confuse a good portion of his readers? He is not. Moreover, the author of Acts may simply have wanted to be consistent in how he used the terms in both volumes. Following his primary gospel source he used “apostles” to refer to the Twelve and, rather than jump ships midstream, continued with that usage of the term in Acts. Surely even a friend of Paul could use the term apostle in the same way he used it in his first volume without denigrating Paul. Remember, Acts was written probably 10 or 15 years after Paul’s death. It is not a biography of Paul or even a defense of his ministry. Rather, it is a history of the progress of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome. Peter, James, and John carry the torch in the first half. Paul in the second.

In any event, whatever the subtleties of Acts’ and Paul’s use of the term “apostle,” they both agree on the main points. Paul encountered the risen Jesus and was given special authority to be his messenger to the Gentiles. Thereafter, Paul carried out a successful ministry to the Gentiles. As F.F. Bruce notes, “when Paul in letters argues for the validity of his apostleship by an appeal to his achievements, the record of Acts provides abundant independent confirmation of his argument.” Bruce, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, page 156.

Finally, let us return to our two exceptions in Acts – where the author does refer explicitly to Paul as an apostle. While we probably cannot know why the author of Acts slips into using the term to refer to Paul, what vs. 4 and 14 do tell us is that the author was not ignorant of Paul’s usage of the term. Paul thought of himself as an apostle. 1 Cor. 9:6, reveals that Paul thought Barnabas was one as well. The author of Acts knows that Paul was called an apostle. He apparently knows that Barnabas was called one as well.

In sum, there is no reason to doubt the authorship of Acts by a companion of Paul because of how the term apostle is used.

Reactions:

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2’s song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, "Pride"). The song, of course, concerns MLKJr. (According to U2 Sermons, U2 formerly ran a video of MLKJr giving his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech during the playing of the song.) However, the lyrics of Pride are quite apparently not exclusively about MLKJr.

A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that some of the skepticism about the account was unjustified. One argument I made was that the number of children killed in Bethlehem would likely have been no more than 20. Though obviously an act of great evil, the killing of 20 children would be much less likely to be noticed by historians of the time than the slaughter of thousands as later traditions speculated.

In response to the post, Peter Kirby asked a few questions. He has patiently waited my response, continuously delayed by work, family, and the completion of my Acts article. Two of the questions had to do with how the amount of 20 was determined. Others with the omission of the account by Luke and the reliability of the tradition recounted by Macrobius. Peter also mentioned that there were other reasons to doubt the story's historicity beyond just the silence of other sources. I h…

[Introductory note from Jason Pratt: the previous entry in this series of posts can be found here. The first entry can be found here.]

Having explained why, as a Christian, I do not hold to what many people (Christian and sceptic) have considered the 'party line' that reason and faith are mutually exclusive, I will now explore this issue from a deeper philosophical perspective.

A Christian (or other religious theist) who accepts a faith/reason disparity will usually do so for religious reasons. His argument that these two aspects must be mutually exclusive (or at least need not have anything to do with each other) will be grounded on positions and presumptions which usually proceed from a devout loyalty to God's status, or from authority of specifically religious leaders, or from the structure of religious ritual, or some combination thereof.

And a sceptic who accepts a faith/reason disparity might do so only because, as far as he can tell, his opposition has chosen that grou…

Lately, I have been listening to a series of lectures by Hubert Dreyfus, Ph.D., a Philosophy professor at U.C. Berekley, concerning the writings of Soren Kierkegaard. The lecture has been very interesting, and while I think that Professor Dreyfus has some questionable interpretations of the Bible, his discussions have given me a greater understanding of Kierkegaard's view of faith. Most importantly, it has helped me clarify in my own mind the use of the illustration of a Knight of Faith and the example of Abraham and Isaac.

The Two Knights of Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard, the great Danish philosopher of the 19th Century, can be considered the father of modern existentialism. In his work Fear and Trembling, he wrote about the difference between two types of people whom he called the Knight of Infinite Resignation and the Knight of Faith. In Fear and Trembling, , Kierkegaard identifies Abraham as a Knight of Faith. In his lectures, however, I get the sense that Professor Dreyfus, who I ac…

It is understandable that naturalistic thinkers are uneasy with the concept of miracles. So should we all be watchful not to believe too quickly because its easy to get caught up in private reasons and ignore reason itself. Thus has more than one intelligent person been taken by both scams and honest mistakes. By the the same token it is equally a danger that one will remain too long in the skeptical place and become overly committed to doubting everything. From that position the circular reasoning of the naturalist seems so reasonable. There’s never been any proof of miracles before so we can’t accept that there is any now. But that’s only because we keep making the same assumption and thus have always dismissed the evidence that was valid. At this point most atheists will interject the ECREE issue (or ECREP—extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or “proof”). That would justify the notion of remaining skeptical about miracle evidence even when its good. The…

Money-hungry televangelists taking advantage of the devotion of the poor? Pedophile priests taking advantage of the young? The apocalypse industry? Its syndication in the tabloids? Another big-name preacher succumbs to sexual temptation or to egotism? Christian factions involved in name-calling melee? In-house church politics alienating God-loving members?

Even if they sound familiar, I suspect that none of those will become the next big church scandal. I think there are two huge scandals that we do not see clearly enough. First, that we are not tending our own houses well enough to stop many of these others before they become scandals. We see them coming; where is our outcry? Second, we are not living lives of such active mercy and compassion as to completely dwarf the scandals in comparison.

Wait, but aren't there Christians living lives of mercy and compassion? Sure, and there many of them. Are they notable? Sure, all of them. I don…

The manger in which Jesus was laid has colored our imagery of Christmas. A manger, "[i]s a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stable designed to hold fodder for livestock.” Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 674. Usually, we associate the manger with the animals in the story of Christmas or with Jesus’ perceived poverty. I have several nativity sets which include the manger, along with barn animals. Although I am a nativity set enthusiast, there is a much deeper meaning in the manger.

The manger is mentioned three times in Luke 2. Mary lays Jesus in the manger, the angels tell the shepherds that they will find the Savior by seeking the baby lying in a manger, and then the shepherds in fact find Jesus lying in a manger. Obviously, the repetitive references to the manger are indicative of its significance in Luke’s narrative. As Bible scholar N.T. Wright comments:

[I]t was the feeding-trough, appropriately enough, which was the sign to the shepherds. It told them whic…

I have always contended that the primary reason to believe in Christianity is because its true. I have said in prior blogposts that if Christianity were false, we should abandon it. Why? Because Christians, who are followers of the one who identified himself as "the way, and the truth and the life" (John 14:6), should be dedicated to the truth above everything else.

Frank Turek, proud purveyor of Cross-Examined, has posted a video entitled "One Question You Should Always Ask an Unbeliever." It is pretty insightful, and the question that should always be asked really does get to the heart of the earnestness of the unbelievers in their views.

If

If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian? It's a pretty straightforward question. The straightforward answer should be either yes or no. In a sane world, I would expect almost anyone answering the question in an equally straightforward manner would answer yes, but Turek points out that some of the people to…

﻿ During a recent discussion of the origin of
life on Facebook some atheist
friends challenged me to get up to speed on abiogenesis research and understand
that life has essentially been created by scientists in a laboratory. To prove
the point they directed me to an article at the Daily Mail, "Scientists Create Artificial Life."[1]Given that
scientists have created a living bacterium, they suggested, there remains no reason
for thinking that the creation of life requires the intervention of God. So I'm
supposed to think that the mystery of life's origin has been solved and any
suggestion otherwise invokes the "God of the gaps" fallacy. Now as mentioned on the Facebook thread, I had issues with all this, beginning with the article itself: 1.
The misleading headline. There's a huge difference between creating artificial
life from nothing but chemicals, as the headline implies, and reverse
engineering an existing bacterium to produce a "rebuilt" v…

Scholars frequently pronounce the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist as one of the firmest historical facts about Jesus’ life. See, e.g., James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Vol. I, pages 350 (“This is one of the most securely grounded facts in all the history of Jesus.”); Robert H. Stein, Mark, page 55 (“Jesus’s baptism by John is one of the most certain historical facts we possess concerning the life of Jesus.”). This post will focus on the account of Jesus’ baptism in Mark and a challenge to its historicity from Neil G. at Vridar. Here is the relevant passage.

John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. John was clothed with camel's hair and wore a leather belt around his waist, and his diet was locusts and wild honey.

Who's Visiting Now

Comments Policy

This blog is open to comments by anyone interested provided: (1) the comments are civil, (2) they are on point, and (3) they do not represent efforts by the comment authors to steer readers to long posts on other websites. Additionally, the CADRE members and management reserve the right to call an end to discussions in the comments section for any reason or for no reason. Once the CADRE member has called the conversation, all further comments are subject to immediate deletion, and the individual commenting may be asked to leave. The members of the CADRE reserve the right to delete any posts that do not adhere to these policies without any further explanation.